On Nov. 11, Supervisor Ray Nutting sent a press release stating that the state Third District Court accepted his appeal for review. On Nov. 21, the court announced it denied Nutting’s appeal.
Thank you for reading the MtDemocrat.com digital edition. In order to continue reading this story please choose one of the following options.
If you are a current subscriber and wish to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com, please select the Subscriber Verification option below. If you already have a login, please select "Login" at the lower right corner of this box.
Special Introductory Offer
For a short time we will be offering a discount to those who call us in order to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com and start your print subscription. Our customer support team will be standing by Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm to assist you.
If you are not a current subscriber and wish not to take advantage of our special introductory offer, please select the $12 monthly option below to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com and start your online subscription
Nutting’s press release stated that his attorneys “have received word from the California State Court of Appeals Third Appellate District that his case has been accepted for further review,” further saying this is rare and that the court usually rejects about 95 percent of received appeals. The court was to review issues on misinstruction of the Grand Jury regarding the perjury charge; the deputy attorney general’s misinterpretation of a penal code, leading to Nutting being overcharged; and the district attorney and DAG’s giving the presiding judge incorrect information regarding the source of the grant in question, causing a motion to dismiss a count to be improperly denied.
However, on Nov. 21, the Third Appellate District announced that Nutting’s petition for appeal on Nutting v. The Superior Court of El Dorado County had been summarily denied.
Nutting’s press release ended with, “Additionally it has been learned the DA Vern Pierson, not satisfied with filing seven charges against Nutting, is now going on yet another expedition to see what more he can find.” It noted that Nutting intended to “stand his ground.”
“When the allegations involving Mr. Nutting came to light,” Pierson responded, “our office initiated an investigation. Our office conducted a sober evaluation of all known facts and circumstances including interviewing Mr. Nutting. Given that he is a seated county supervisor, we requested the California Attorney General also examine the evidence. Upon review of the evidence, the attorney general joined the case with our office.”
Pierson noted he also asked the Fair Political Practices Commission for help, as Nutting had in the past. The FFPC suggested there might be conflicts of interest for Nutting, violations of government code section 1090.
“The case was then presented jointly by our office and the attorney general to a criminal grand jury which indicted Mr. Nutting on various felony charges,” Pierson said prior to the Third District’s decision. “In the best interests of El Dorado County we have attempted to move this case as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Nutting conversely appears to attempt to stall the proceedings with motion after motion. In the end, this case will be decided in a courtroom based upon the law and evidence, not some silly, misleading press release.”
Nutting has been charged by both the District Attorney’s Office and a Grand Jury with filing false documents, failure to disclose income and having a financial interest in a county contract regarding grants to clear land for fire safety. His next hearing is Dec. 6 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 1. Nutting was unavailable for comment at the time of this article.
Contact Cole Mayer at 530-344-5068 or email@example.com. Follow @CMayerMtDemo.